4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Czestochowa.
5.  The applicant was arrested on 24 April 2001 on charges of acting in an organised criminal group involved in the commission of armed robberies, offences against life or limb and property and drug trafficking. By a decision of the Katowice District Court of 25 April 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody until 23 July 2001. The court observed that on the basis of the evidence gathered so far (inter alia, evidence from two crown witnesses) there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It also referred to the risk that the further course of the proceedings would be jeopardised if the applicant were released.
6.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Częstochowa Regional Court (decisions of 19 July 2001, 18 October 2001, 29 November 2001) and by the Katowice Court of Appeal (decisions of 17 April 2002, 22 May 2002, 9 April 2003, 4 December 2002, 17 December 2003, 26 May 2004, 22 December 2004). The applicant challenged the decisions prolonging his detention on remand, but they were upheld (decision of the Katowice Regional Court of 30 May 2001; decisions of the Katowice Court of Appeal of 8 May 2002, 15 January 2003, 7 May 2003, 14 January 2004, 29 December 2004).
7.  The applicant unsuccessfully applied for release and to have the preventive measure imposed on him replaced by a more lenient one (decisions of the Regional and Appeal Prosecutors of 21 May 2001, 11 June 2001, 9 July 2001, 1 October 2001, 3 December 2003 refusing the applicant’s requests; decisions of the Częstochowa Regional Court of 27 March 2003 and 4 September 2003). The courts justified their decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand and their refusals to release him by referring to the complexity of the case, the significant number of accused, the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences concerned and the severity of the likely sentence. These facts gave rise to the courts’ assumption that the applicant, if released, could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings, especially given that some suspects were still at large. The courts were of the opinion that a comprehensive examination of the case required that the investigation be continued and that the applicant’s detention was the only way to secure the proper course of the proceedings.
8.  On 28 October 2002 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant, in addition to the existing charges, with several counts of obtaining compensation under false pretences from an insurance company, illegal possession of firearms, extortion and drug trafficking.
9.  On 27 February 2003 a bill of indictment against the applicant was submitted to the Częstochowa Regional Court. The charges on the indictment included extortion, illegal possession of firearms and drug trafficking, committed while acting in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment numbered 87 pages and the case file numbered 59 volumes. The prosecutor requested the court to hear 75 witnesses, including two crown witnesses. There were 22 accused.
10.  The first hearing was held on 15 July 2003. 54 hearings were held in the case up until 16 February 2005 and about 70 hearings in total before the first-instance court up until December 2005. Some of the defendants and witnesses repeatedly failed to comply with the court summonses.
11.  The hearing scheduled for 15 July 2003 was adjourned because of the absence of two lawyers. Some of the defendants requested the court to appoint legal-aid lawyers for them.
12.  On 29 July 2003 the court held a hearing and heard an expert witness on the issue of the applicant’s health. The expert asserted that the applicant’s condition was not incompatible with his continued detention. In consequence, the applicant’s request of 20 May 2003 for release was dismissed.
Three accused voluntarily pleaded guilty. The relevant judgments were delivered on 5 and 13 August 2003.
The applicant pleaded not guilty and refused to testify.
13.  On 30 July 2003 the court held a hearing. Another co-accused pleaded guilty. The judgment in his case was delivered on 13 August 2003. One of the defendants claimed to be ill and requested medical assistance; an ambulance was called. After a break in the hearing a doctor declared that the defendant was well enough to attend the hearing.
14.  A hearing scheduled for 12 August 2003 was adjourned because one of the co-accused had withdrawn his lawyer’s power of attorney and had refused to accept a legal-aid lawyer.
15.  On 24 September 2003 another defendant pleaded guilty. The judgment was delivered on 1 October 2003. Four other defendants were heard.
16.  On 25 September 2003 two defendants were released on bail.
17.  The subsequent hearings were held and witnesses were heard despite the absence of some of the co-accused.
18.  On 29 October 2003 the court decided to release another defendant.
19.  During a hearing held on 19 November 2003 the applicant made oral submissions to the court.
20.  On 2 November 2003 two witnesses failed to comply with the summons. The court ordered that one of them be escorted to the court by the police and requested the police to verify the address of the other. Three defendants were absent. The court requested an expert opinion concerning the applicant’s health.
21.  On 10 December 2003 one of the defendants objected to his locum tenens lawyer, and the hearing was adjourned until 11.30 a.m., when his lawyer arrived. One witness was heard.
22.  On 13 December 2003 the court released four defendants.
23.  On 10 March 2004 the court held a hearing. Six of the co-accused and three witnesses were absent. The court requested the police to serve the summons on one of the absent witnesses and a fine of PLN 1,000 was imposed on another.
24.  On 24 March 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for release.
25.  The hearing scheduled for 31 March 2004 was adjourned as one of the defendants had fallen ill and eleven witnesses failed to appear in court.
26.  During the hearing held on 17 April 2004 one of the accused claimed that he did not feel well enough to take part in the hearing. The judge referred to a medical certificate which indicated the contrary. Later the same accused pretended to lose consciousness; however an ambulance doctor found that his condition allowed him to participate in the hearing.
27.  The hearing scheduled for 21 April 2004 was adjourned, as one of the accused objected to his locum tenens lawyer. On the same day the court, sitting in camera, dismissed a motion of one of the co-accused who had challenged the impartiality of the court.
28.  The hearing scheduled for 5 May 2004 was adjourned as none of the witnesses appeared in court.
29.  The hearings scheduled for 12, 15, 19 and 26 May 2004 were cancelled because one of the accused had been transferred to Warsaw to undergo medical treatment.
30.  The hearing scheduled for 9 June 2004 was adjourned as a lay judge failed to attend.
31.  On 14 July 2004 one witness failed to appear in court. The officers of the Central Investigative Office (Centralne Biuro Śledcze) informed the court that he was a suspect in another case and had gone into hiding.
32.  During the hearing held on 21 July 2004 a co-accused challenged a judge. His motion was dismissed on the same day. Another of the accused objected to his lawyer being replaced by a locum tenens for the hearing. The hearing was adjourned until the next day.
33.  Fifteen witnesses failed to appear for the hearing held on 11 August 2004. The court imposed fines on four of them and requested the police to serve summonses on the others.
34.  On 23 August 2004 the applicant sent a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman asked the President of the Czestochowa Regional Court to comment on the complaint and to speed up the proceedings. The President of the Częstochowa Regional Court assured both the applicant and the Ombudsman that he would supervise the proceedings. In his opinion, there had been no undue delays in the proceedings, as roughly four hearings per month had been held. The case was complex and involved several accused; nevertheless, the proceedings had progressed steadily.
35.  During a hearing held on 22 September 2004 the court heard a witness, who suddenly felt unwell. A doctor declared that his condition did not allow for the witness’ continued questioning and the hearing was adjourned.
36.  On 29 September 2004 the court heard six witnesses. Twenty witnesses and nine accused failed to appear. Apparently one of the witnesses had gone abroad. Two witnesses had changed addresses. The police had been unable to establish the addresses of five witnesses.
37.  On 6 October 2004 the court held a hearing in the absence of seven defendants. Apparently another witness, a suspect in a different case, had gone into hiding.
38.  At a hearing held on 20 October 2004 sixteen witnesses were absent. The court imposed fines of PLN 500 on five of them.
39.  On 24 November 2004 the court heard three witnesses in the absence of several co-accused. Fifteen witnesses failed to appear in court. The court requested the police to serve summonses on three witnesses and to bring twelve of them to the next hearing.
40.  On 1 December 2004 the court heard three witnesses in the absence of seven of the accused. Four witnesses and an expert witness were absent.
41.  On 8 December 2004 the court heard four witnesses in the absence of several co-accused. Eleven witnesses failed to appear; the court requested the police to bring them to the next hearing.
42.  On 15 December 2004 the court held a hearing and heard four witnesses in the absence of seven of the defendants. Three witnesses were absent.
43.  On 3 January 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings under the Act of 17 June 2004. On 23 February 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint. In 17 pages of written reasons the court analysed the course of the proceedings from 27 March 2003 to 16 February 2005 and found that although the length of the proceedings had indeed been considerable, there had been no undue delays on the part of the court. The Regional Court had conducted the proceedings scrupulously, the hearings had been held regularly, four or even five times per month. The length of the proceedings had resulted from the complexity of the case and other objective factors and not from any negligence on the part of the court. The hearings were usually scheduled one month in advance to allow the accused time to prepare their defence. The court also noted that the case file had often been transferred to the Court of Appeal as a result of numerous motions and appeals filed by all the accused. The court acknowledged that the accused could not be blamed for availing themselves of their procedural rights; however, the number of filed motions had contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings, as had the conduct of some of the defendants. The Court of Appeal observed that special diligence was required when an accused was detained on remand, but in its view the first-instance court had been aware of that requirement and had fully observed it. The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that detention, even if lengthy, could be justified in the circumstances of a given case as long as it was supervised by a court and was found necessary.
44.  The hearing scheduled for 19 January 2005 was adjourned due to the absence of two defence lawyers.
45.  On 26 January 2005 the court heard eight witnesses. Five witnesses and seven defendants were absent.
46.  On 9 February 2005 the court held a hearing in the absence of eight defendants. It heard three witnesses; nine witnesses failed to appear. One of the defendants challenged an expert. The court, sitting in camera, dismissed the motion.
47.  On 16, 23 and 30 March 2005 the Regional Court heard witnesses. On 23 March 2005 the court dismissed a motion of an accused challenging the impartiality of the court.
48.  On 24 March 2005 the applicant was released on bail.
49.  Further hearings were held and numerous witnesses were heard on 6 and 27 April 2005, on 11, 18 and 20 May 2005, on 1, 8, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24 and 29 June 2005, on 6 and 13 July 2005.
50.  On 18 and 29 June 2005 and on 6 July 2005 the Regional Court dismissed motions challenging the impartiality of the judges lodged by three defendants.
51.  The hearing scheduled for 2 August 2005 was adjourned as the lawyers of two of the accused failed to appear. On the same day the court dismissed another motion challenging the impartiality of the judge.
52.  The hearing scheduled for 9 August 2005 was adjourned because two witnesses failed to appear.
53.  On 31 August 2005 the Czestochowa Regional Court heard witnesses.
54.  On 28 December 2005 the court gave its judgment. The applicant was found guilty of being a member of an organised criminal group involved in the commission of armed robberies, offences against life or limb and drug trafficking. He was also found guilty of purchasing 0.5 kg of cocaine and distributing it on the market, and of possession of two firearms. The Regional Court imposed on him concurrent sentences totalling 5 years, and counted the period of provisional custody towards the sentence. By that stage the case file numbered 121 volumes.
55.  The applicant appealed and the proceedings are pending.